Enhanced recovery after surgery: Preoperative carbohydrate loading and insulin management in type 2 diabetes.

We assessed our institutional practice of individualized insulin dosing for patients with type 2 diabetes receiving preoperative carbohydrate loading (CHO-L) within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) protocol. Patients enrolled in an ERAS® protocol with concomitant type 2 diabetes received rapid acting insulin (Novolog®[insulin aspart]) prior to 50 g CHO-L on the day of surgery. Following CHO-L and the administration of insulin, no hypoglycemic episodes occurred with preoperative POC glucose values between 6.8 and 12.3 mmol/L (123 and 221 mg/dL). Our experience demonstrates that administering rapid acting insulin prior to CHO-L in patients with type 2 diabetes is feasible and targets the potentially negative influence CHO-L may impose on preoperative glycemia in this population. Important considerations of this approach are highlighted and an insulin dosing algorithm designed for non-specialty providers is suggested.

Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusions vs. Multiple Daily Injections of Insulin in Hospitalized Patients: Glycemic Trends in the First 24 Hours of Admission.

BACKGROUND: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is a common diabetes treatment modality. Glycemic outcomes of patients using CSII in the first 24 hours of hospitalization have not been well studied. This timeframe is of particular importance because insulin pump settings are programmed to achieve tight outpatient glycemic targets which could result in hypoglycemia when patients are hospitalized. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated 216 hospitalized adult patients using CSII and 216 age-matched controls treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) of insulin. Patients using CSII did not make changes to pump settings in the first 24 hours of admission. Blood glucose (BG) values within the first 24 hours of admission were collected. The primary outcome was frequency of hypoglycemia (BG < 70 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes were frequency of severe hypoglycemia (BG < 40 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia (BG ≥ 180 mg/dL). RESULTS: There were significantly fewer events of hypoglycemia [incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.88, p = 0.007] and hyperglycemia (IRR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.96, p = 0.02) in the CSII group compared to the MDI group. There was a trend toward fewer events of severe hypoglycemia in the CSII group (IRR 0.15, 95% CI 0.02-0.93, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using CSII experienced fewer events of both hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia in the first 24 hours of hospital admission than those treated with MDI. Our study demonstrates that CSII use is safe and effective for the treatment of diabetes within the first 24 hours of hospital admission.

Correlation of Hemoglobin A1C and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes is a known risk factor for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted this study to determine if there is a correlation between hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) level and poor outcomes in hospitalized patients with diabetes and COVID-19. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center, observational study of patients with diabetes (defined by an HbA1C level of ≥6.5% or known medical history of diabetes) who had a confirmed case of COVID-19 and required hospitalization. All patients were admitted to our institution between March 3, 2020, and May 5, 2020. HbA1C results for each patient were divided into quartiles: 5.1% to 6.7% (32-50 mmol/mol), 6.8% to 7.5% (51-58 mmol/mol), 7.6% to 8.9% (60-74 mmol/mol), and >9% (>75 mmol/mol). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included admission to an intensive care unit, invasive mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, acute thrombosis, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 506 patients were included. The number of deaths within quartiles 1 through 4 were 30 (25%), 37 (27%), 34 (27%), and 24 (19%), respectively. There was no statistical difference in the primary or secondary outcomes among the quartiles, except that acute kidney injury was less frequent in quartile 4. CONCLUSION: There was no significant association between HbA1C level and adverse clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes who are hospitalized with COVID-19. HbA1C levels should not be used for risk stratification in these patients.

Efficacy of Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in a Hospital Setting: A Case Series.

OBJECTIVE: We report a case series of 4 patients with type 1 diabetes who used hybrid closed-loop insulin pumps (Medtronic MiniMed 670 G) during hospitalization. METHODS: Clinical data and point-of-care glucose values are presented for each patient. Glucose values are shown graphically while in manual mode as well as in auto mode. RESULTS: The first case was a 30-year-old man admitted for pancreatitis. Mean point-of-care blood glucose was 165.7 mg/dL while in auto mode, without hypoglycemia, compared with 221 mg/dL while in manual mode. The second case was a 28-year-old woman who was admitted for a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Mean point-of-care blood glucose in auto mode was 131.3 mg/dL, without hypoglycemia, compared with 117.6 mg/dL while in manual mode. The third case was a 46-year-old man admitted to the intensive care unit for influenzal pneumonia. Mean point-of-care blood glucose in auto mode was 159.1 mg/dL without hypoglycemia, compared with 218.5 mg/dL while in manual mode. The fourth case was a 60-year-old man who remained in auto mode throughout his hospitalization except for a period when he removed his pump for an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound. His mean point-of-care blood glucose while in auto mode was 156.8 mg/dL without hypoglycemia. CONCLUSION: These case reports support the use of hybrid closed-loop insulin-pump therapy in the inpatient setting to maintain inpatient glycemic targets and avoid hypoglycemia when part of an institution-sanctioned strategy for safe use of insulin pumps that includes point-of-care blood glucose monitoring.

SAFETY AND EFFICACY OF GLUCOSTABILIZER IN THE MANAGEMENT OF DIABETIC KETOACIDOSIS.

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of GlucoStabilizer software intravenous insulin (IV) dosing in comparison to American Diabetes Association protocol-directed provider-guided insulin dose adjustment (PGIA). Methods: GlucoStabilizer calculates the dose of IV insulin required to reach a prescribed target glucose range. GlucoStabilizer has not been fully studied in DKA. This retrospective study compared outcomes in patients with DKA before and after the implementation of GlucoStabilizer. Insulin doses were administered based on GlucoStabilizer calculations or PGIA. The analysis evaluated before-after changes in the amount of insulin used, time to target, hypoglycemia or hypokalemia events, and the time to DKA resolution. Results: We studied 77 patients with insulin doses calculated by GlucoStabilizer and 69 patients with PGIA dosing. GlucoStabilizer was superior to PGIA. Patients treated with GlucoStabilizer-calculated doses did not experience hypoglycemia (N = 0 versus N = 10; P<.001). The 10 unique PGIA patients had a total of 18 episodes with 17 between 55 to 69 mg/dL; 1 <54 mg/dL, and no episodes <40 mg/dL. The GlucoStabilizer group required less insulin to reach DKA resolution (59.2 versus 101.2 units; P<.001). Time to glycemic target and DKA resolution were similar (6.7 versus 4.6 hours; P = .132) and (9.8 versus 9.9 hours; P = .803), respectively. No difference in the incidence of hypokalemia was seen (N = 9 versus N = 11; P = .48). Conclusion: This study demonstrates the Gluco Stabilizer settings that can be successfully used in the management of DKA with the avoidance of hypoglycemia. Patients treated with GlucoStabilizer-calculated doses experienced no hypoglycemia and required less insulin as compared to those managed with PGIA. Abbreviations: ADA = American Diabetes Association; DKA = diabetic ketoacidosis; ED = emergency department; eGMS = electronic glycemic management systems; ICU = intensive care unit; IV = intravenous; PGIA = protocol-directed provider-guided insulin dose adjustment.

CHANGING TO BASAL-BOLUS INSULIN THERAPY FOR THE INPATIENT MANAGEMENT OF HYPERGLYCEMIA-A NATURAL EXPERIMENT.

Objective: Most acute-care hospitals have transitioned from sliding-scale to basal-bolus insulin therapy to manage hyperglycemia during hospitalization, but there is limited scientific evidence demonstrating better short-term clinical outcomes using the latter approach. The present study sought to determine if using basal-bolus insulin therapy favorably affects these outcomes in noncritical care settings and, if so, whether the magnitude of benefit differs in patients with known versus newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Methods: This natural experiment compared outcomes in 10,120 non-critically ill adults with type 2 diabetes admitted to an academic teaching hospital before and after hospital-wide implementation of a basal-bolus insulin therapy protocol. A group of 30,271 inpatients without diabetes (type 1 or 2) served as controls. Binomial models were used to compare percentages of patients with type 2 diabetes who were transferred to intensive care, experienced complications, or died in the hospital before and after implementation of the protocol, controlling for changes in the control group. The analysis also evaluated before-after changes in length of stay and glucometric indicators. Results: Implementation of basal-bolus therapy did not reduce intensive care use (the primary outcome), complications, mortality, or median length of stay, except in patients with newly diagnosed diabetes (n = 234), who experienced a statistically significant decline in the incidence of complications (P<.01). The absence of effect in previously diagnosed patients was observed in spite of a 32% decline (from 3.7% to 2.5%) in the proportion of inpatient days with hypoglycemia <70 mg/dL (P<.01) and a 16% decline (from 13.5% to 11.3%) in the proportion of days with hyperglycemia >300 mg/dL (P<.01). Conclusion: Despite achieving significant reductions in both hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia, use of basal-bolus insulin therapy to manage hyperglycemia in non-critically ill hospitalized patients did not improve short-term clinical outcomes, except in the small minority of patients with newly diagnosed diabetes. The optimal management of hyperglycemia for improving these outcomes has yet to be determined. Abbreviation: ICD-9 = International Classification of Diseases-Ninth Revision.

Software-guided insulin dosing improves intrapartum glycemic management in women with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: During labor, maintenance of maternal euglycemia is critical to decrease the risk of neonatal hypoglycemia and associated morbidities. When continuous intravenous insulin infusion is needed, standardized insulin dosing charts have been used for titration of insulin to maintain glucose in target range. The GlucoStabilizer software program (Indiana University Health Inc, Indianapolis, IN) is a software-guided insulin dosing system that calculates the dose of intravenous insulin that is needed based on metabolic parameters, target glucose concentration, and an individual's response to insulin. Although this tool has been validated and shown to reduce both hypoglycemia and errors in critical care settings, the utility of this software has not been examined in obstetrics. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of intravenous insulin dosing software in women with pregestational or gestational diabetes mellitus that requires intrapartum insulin infusion can improve the rate of glucose concentration in target range (70-100 mg/dL; 3.9-5.5 mmol/L) at the time delivery. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing laboring patients with diabetes mellitus that required insulin infusion who were dosed by standard insulin dosing chart vs the GlucoStabilizer software program from January 2012 to December 2017. The GlucoStabilizer software program, which was implemented in May 2016, replaced the standard intravenous insulin dosing chart. Inclusion criteria were women with pregestational or gestational diabetes mellitus who were treated with an intravenous insulin infusion intrapartum for at least 2 hours. Maternal characteristics, glucose values in labor, and neonatal outcomes were extracted from delivery and neonatal records. The primary outcome was the percentage of women who achieved the target glucose range (defined as a blood glucose between 70-100 mg/dL; 3.9-5.5 mmol/L) before delivery. Parametric and nonparametric statistics were used to compare both groups; a probability value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We identified 22 patients who were dosed by a standard insulin dosing chart and 11 patients who were dosed by the GlucoStabilizer software program during intrapartum management. The GlucoStabilizer software program was superior in achieving glucose values in target range at delivery (81.8% vs 9.1%; P<.001) compared with standard insulin dosing without increasing maternal hypoglycemia (0% vs 4.3%; P=.99). Patients whose insulin dosing was managed by the GlucoStabilizer software program also had lower mean capillary blood glucose values compared with the standard insulin infusion (102.9±5.9 mg/dL [5.7±0.33 mmol/L] vs 121.7±5.9 mg/dL [6.8±0.33 mmol/L]; P=.02). Before the initiation of the infusion, both groups demonstrated mean capillary blood glucose values outside of target range (122.6±8.8 mg/dL [6.7±0.49 mmol/L] for the GlucoStabilizer software program vs 131.9±10.1 mg/dL [7.3±0.56 mmol/L] for standard insulin treatment group; P=not significant). There were no significant differences in baseline maternal characteristics between the groups or neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate that the use of software-guided intravenous insulin dosing in obstetrics can improve intrapartum glycemic management without increasing hypoglycemia in women with both pregestational and gestational diabetes mellitus that is treated with an insulin infusion.

A new look at established therapies: practical tools for optimizing insulin use.

PURPOSE: Current evidence shows early initiation of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) improves glycemic control, responsiveness to subsequent oral antidiabetic therapies, beta-cell function, and possible cardiovascular outcomes. The American Diabetes Association (ADA)/European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2008 algorithm introduces insulin therapy earlier in the treatment of T2DM with prompt intensification to achieve therapeutic goals. Agent selection and insulin regimens are based on patient A1C levels and willingness to monitor blood glucose, use of previous medications, blood glucose patterns, diet, and lifestyle. Practical considerations offered for diabetes educators and clinicians include creating strategies for early initiation of insulin, addressing patients' psychosocial barriers and quality of life concerns, understanding pharmacokinetic properties of insulin formulations, selecting appropriate therapy and patient-based regimens, and intensifying therapy to achieve glycemic control. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes education, including intentional curriculum design, for patients with T2DM who are initiating or intensifying insulin therapy, addresses patient barriers to care, reduces the burden of treatment, improves adherence to treatment protocols, and helps optimize clinical outcomes.

Translating clinical trial data into new patterns of practice.

PURPOSE: The ongoing research into the intricacies of glucoregulation and the upsurge in the number of pharmacologic therapies has broadened the treatment options for type 2 diabetes. Successful translation of pharmacologic clinical trial data into new patterns of practice begins by creating the space for a new therapy through a thorough understanding of its mechanism of action. CONCLUSION: This article will discuss important considerations for identifying patients who could benefit from incretin mimetic therapy, the role of the diabetes educator in building a cohesive team, and teaching strategies that support patients' self-management efforts.

The insulin resistance syndrome and coronary artery disease.

Insulin resistance is an increasingly common metabolic abnormality characterized by an impaired physiological response to insulin. The constellation of insulin resistance and several other metabolic and vascular disorders is known as the insulin resistance syndrome. The characteristic features of the insulin resistance syndrome include central obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, glucose intolerance and specific abnormalities of both endothelial cell and vascular function. Although insulin resistance can arise in response to aging, obesity and inactivity, there is a clear genetic component. Insulin resistance is not generally attributable to a single genetic defect. Indeed, it is very likely to be a polygenic disorder in most individuals. A genetic predisposition is suggested to be the demonstration of increased insulin resistance in first-degree relatives of patients with diabetes and by a high incidence of insulin resistance in specific populations. Epidemiological data have demonstrated a strong association between a clustering of specific factors and the risk of cardiovascular disease. The diagnosis of the insulin resistance syndrome remains a significant clinical challenge. At present, clinicians are faced with establishing a clinical diagnosis despite varying definitions of the disorder and controversy regarding how many components presage clinical events. A proposed approach to the management of patients with the insulin resistance syndrome is discussed.